You: “Did you know I am in graduate school at Penn?”

          Colleague: “No I didn’t know.   What are you studying?”

          You: “Organizational Dynamics.”

          Colleague: “What’s that?”

          You: “Well, it’s…ah…there are courses that…ah…”

The problem is partly about language and partly about identity.  To address both, I provide some context and details so that an “elevator pitch” about Organizational Dynamics at Penn – a brief clear overview of who we are and what we do – can be provided to anyone who asks.  

Scholars in management, psychology, sociology, and related social science fields have defined organizational dynamics as (the study of) the interactive forces, activities, meanings, and changes affecting people and organizations when they work together in order to accomplish personal and professional goals.  While most universities offer programs that include courses “about” organizational dynamics, it is exceptional to dig deeply into or focus specifically on this domain.  Two rare Organizational Dynamics graduate programs are at University of Oklahoma (http://tulsagrad.ou.edu/odyn/) and University of Calgary (http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2009/human-resources-and-organizational-dynamics.html).  There are also a few undergraduate programs including University of Wilmington (http://www.wilmu.edu/behavioralscience/orgdynamics.aspx) and a certificate program at University of Idaho (http://www.uidaho.edu/cda/academicdepartmentshub/organizationaldynamics.aspx).  Despite the same name, close examination of these programs reveals only slight relationship to the scope or approach of Organizational Dynamics at Penn.

We hold two assumptions.  First, Organizational Dynamics is a domain; a scholarly and intellectual field with a body of knowledge from which we draw our curriculum and our courses.  Second, Organizational Dynamics includes applied scholarship; mastering the knowledge and skills within it enables one to perform in organizations at levels that are qualitatively and quantitatively enhanced.  

The nature of the body of knowledge can be understood by examining the integrated structure of our concentrations.  We not only address models, theories, and practices of organizational leadership, coaching, project (and program) management, change (and development), global forces, and sustainability, we also study how the frameworks and processes within these domains interconnect.  This is because to understand and manage the “interactive forces, activities, meanings, and changes affecting people and organizations when they work together” requires understanding how differing world views and perspectives affect these topics.  Members of modern organizations operate not merely by trying to meet goals (get things done).  We also seek meaning and understanding about the social, political, cultural, technological, and strategic forces that are present when we work with people in every department and in every project.  When people work together (collaborate) toward shared (or often covert) interests and goals, those who can effectively navigate, integrate, and shift between the various frameworks are most successful. 

Our world and organizations are complex and dynamic.  Organizational change seems constant, moving at varying speeds in and out of turbulence, much as an airplane flight or a ship at sea.  The competencies to navigate, lead, and manage from the top or from the middle of modern and future organizations are not easily acquired in traditional academic fields; rather they require a blend of professional competencies, organizational experience, and new ways to think about people, work, and workplaces.  This is why Organizational Dynamics at Penn offers a broad set of courses (more than 60 each year).  It is to enable students to select and develop their own blend of knowledge, skills, and creativity. 

Going forward, consider some version of this:

          You: “Did you know I am in graduate school at Penn?”

          Colleague: “No I didn’t know.  What are you studying?”

          You: “Organizational Dynamics.”

          Colleague: “What’s that?”

          You: “It’s an individually designed professional Master’s Degree.  I’m learning new approaches of (insert your concentration(s), such as project management, leadership, and coaching) to better navigate through the politics and help solve some of our complex organizational problems in (insert your field, such as IT, marketing, finance, HR, etc.).”

When the person responds: “Wow!  Such a program actually exists?” Say: “There is only one like this in the world and it’s at Penn.” 

When you get off the elevator and if your colleague could be a good candidate, offer to help the person find out more about us.

Pink argues that after transitioning through the agricultural and industrial ages, the developed nations of our world are now nearly through the information age. Peter Drucker (1959) in The Landmarks of Tomorrow (http://www.getcited.org/pub/101188213)  characterized the information age as knowledge work conducted by knowledge workers mostly referring to our computer-based activities. Pink argues that this is mostly over and as global Affluence, Technological progress, and Globalization and connectivity (what he calls ATG) continue, we are being “nudged” into a new Conceptual age. He posits six areas or senses that define and enable work and workers in this new age: Design, Story, Symphony, Empathy, Play, and Meaning. I don’t know if we are actually entering a new age, but I do agree that these are critical frameworks. Indeed, Organizational Dynamics at Penn has been an academic leader in their integration for more than 30 years as I outline below by describing the first three.

Pink notes first that in the new age, successful organizations will need to provide products and services that focus not just on function but also design. He writes, “It’s no longer sufficient to create a product, a service, an experience, or a lifestyle that is merely functional. Today it is economically crucial and personally rewarding to create something that is also beautiful, whimsical, or emotionally engaging.”

I agree. For example, the emergence of Stanford University’s d-School (http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/), the Manage by Designing approach at the Weatherhead School of Business at Case Western Reserve University (http://design.case.edu/), and the Integrative Thinking approach used by the Rotman School of Business at University of Toronto (http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/integrativethinking/) are recent examples of how design is entering management education and practice. Design thinking in management is not new, of course. Russell Ackoff described the use of idealized design thinking and interactive planning several decades ago, and Organizational Dynamics faculty include design thinking in many course curricula. This semester (fall 2009), students who register for Systems and Design Thinking will experience a comprehensive dose by studying with Professor John Pourdehnad, a leader in the field. Indeed, in 2008 he was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to visit the New Bulgarian University in Sophia, Bulgaria to help create the “Design Institute” for the practice of design thinking using trans-disciplinary teams to cope with complex and intractable problems. Dr. Pourdehnad cites Bevens, Glenn, et al (2007) who wrote, “Design thinking is about the broader creative approach [and] at a practical level, design offers a range of proven tools and techniques for transformation that connect organizations with their users, encourages collective participation, and reveals insights in a variety of contexts.”

Pink second notes that individually and organizationally, one must have both a cogent argument and also a Story. He writes, “It’s not enough to marshal an effective argument. Someone will track down a counterpoint to rebut your point. The essence of persuasion, communication, and self-understanding has become the ability also to fashion a compelling narrative.”

Organizational Dynamics offers several courses that address persuasion, communication, and self-understanding but two this semester, in particular, focus on the importance of Story. Stories in Organizations, taught by Dr. Janet Greco, examines a variety of ways to bring the power of stories to organizational life. Her course examines how stories enhance communication, support change, and intensify learning and development in individuals and organizations, thus informing leadership style and effectiveness including by applying “story-based technologies” to issues faced in personal and professional life. Organizational Experience: Self, Role, and Expectations, taught by Professor Jim Larkin is another example. In his course, students consider and reconsider their own work preferences and career choices as reflections of their early family, school and work experience. They do this by researching and developing their own story via an autobiography that explores family history, educational history, and organizational work experience as a practicing professional.

Third, Pink posits that one must also have Symphony. By this he means the opposite of focusing on specialization, analysis, and reducing problems into smaller parts. Rather, what is critical is synthesis – “seeing the big picture, crossing boundaries, and being able to combine disparate pieces into an arresting new whole.” Of course, as one with a background in theatre and music (http://www.interlochen.org/), I have a positive connection to symphonic and synthetic thinking.

At Penn, Organizational Dynamics is the academic home of synthetic thinking. It is here that an integrative approach is most obvious in the nature of our faculty – drawn from 17 disciplines; our student community – drawn from scores of professional sectors; and our curriculum – which integrates sustainable development, global studies, change management, project and program management, organizational coaching and consulting, and leadership. This semester, several Symphony courses are available, but our newest is Modern Capitalism and Sustainability: How Can Profit, People and Planet All Be Served? This course, taught by Frank Nuessle and Alan Barstow examines the difficulties of operating a sustainable business in a society that has an unquestioned commitment to economic growth at any cost. Yet, creating a world where nature thrives, business prospers, and societies work without mortgaging the future of unborn generations – is the great challenge of the 21st century. The class examines how using systems thinking and Ackoff’s idealized design are routes to sustainability. A second is Organizational Consulting: Proseminar in Organizational Development which I teach. In this class we examine the underlying theories and models for managing organization development and change through the experiences and competencies of scholar-practitioner-consultants. For example, Dr. Jason Magidson, formerly Director of Innovation Processes for GSK and now co-director of Wildfire Commerce consultancy (http://wildfirecommerce.com/) describes how he uses idealized design for improvements in a wide range of organizational processes, services and products. Eileen Shanahan, a 1999 graduate of MSOD and now a consultant, describes how she uses Appreciative Inquiry (a blend of positive psychology and systems thinking) to help organizations better manage globalization and cross-cultural diversity.

If we are entering a conceptual age, being a member of the Organizational Dynamics at Penn community seems to be in the “very pinke” of it all.

Bevan, H., Glenn, R., Bate, P. Maher, L., & Wells, J. Using a Design Approach to Assist Large-Scale Organizational Change: “10 High Impact Changes” to Improve the National Health Service in England, 2007, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 135-152.